Aardvark

Well, intelligence and consciousness are different things, but they are linked. It would be difficult to conceive of consciousness developing without intelligence. Yes, most decisions are largely unconcious, but consciousness remains an important factor. (i don't see any conflict between consciousness and free will) You are confidently asserting as fact something that is, at best a hypothesis, i can imagine circumstances in which abstract thought would be a significant advantage. The ability to think in abstract terms would allow language and communication, the transmittion of information. For instance an older member of a family group could tell younger members that in the last harsh drought forty years ago game was found near certain hidden waterholes in a certain place. That sort of information transmittion could mean the difference between extinction and survivial in the harsh pliestocene. Darwinism doesn't claim that life and consciousness are the result of 'pure chance'. Also Darwinism does not deny God, spirit, free will or an afterlife. Darwinism simply makes no comment at all on those matters.

There are a number of different theories that could explain the development of consciousness in humans. Having greater intelligence allows more communication and cooperation which would have obvious advantages in such matters as hunting, maintaining larger social groups, passing on information about threats, dangers and useful facts such as the location of water or shelter. Alternatively sexual selection is a possibility. Just as the Peacocks feathers have little utilitarian purpose so the human brain could be the same, developed as an ornament. Either way, there is nothing inherently inexplicable about the development of consciousness which challenges Darwinianism. Darwinian theory is nothing to do with the appearance of life on Earth. It does not pretend to explain it. Darwinian theory does not explain how jet engines work or what fuels the sun. That doesn't invalidate Darwinianism in any way.

I'm not clear about this, if more than 50% of Quebecers are for separation why didn't they vote for it in the referendum? Surely the referendum showed that more than 50% wanted to remain part of Canada?

Check the facts. Russia was industrialising more rapidly under the Tsars before 1914 than it ever did under Stalin and his much vaulted 5 year plans. The idea that communist was responsible for the development of Russia is a widespread myth. The USSR didn't become capitalist and so collapse. It collasped and THEN started to become capitalist. Big difference. Socialism precipitated the recession. Chronology, cause and effect. Understand? Your arguments are so at variance with reality i think there is the possibility that you are a troll.

Coopers PLA is a pretty decent drink. Happy Australia day:-)

Another word to describe that is feudalism. Ya for serfdom!

Curses, you've seen through our cunning ploy. Accept evolution and lose your souls, hahahahahah:D

Any chance of other materials being developed?

Not wanting to nit pick, but the history of homosexuality is a bit more complicated than that. Many cultures and societies have accected homosexuality as normal, but also many have been feriously repressive. The ancient Sumerians and Israelities killed homosexual men (despite hints of homoerotic love in the Bible between Johnathan and David), whilst ancient Greece and ,to a slightly lesser extent, ancient Rome were tolerant. Many African cultures were (and remain) highly homophobic, while the Ottoman empire was known for its tolerant attitudes. There seems to be a consistent inconsistency and ambiguity toward sociatal views of homosexuality throughout history. However the fact that homosexuality has been clearly prevalent throughout history and through all cultures, however repressive, indicates a 'hardwired' component to homosexuality. My guess is that is related the the concept of kin selection. A homosexual may not directly pass on his or her genes, but can indirectly do so through being a valuable member of the extended family/tribal group. A gay uncle who is a fierce warrior and skillful hunter who also is good at caring for the nieces and nephews could be a major asset in evolutionarly terms.

Hooray for yet more proof for evolution. Biodiversity rules!

Check out Britain in the 1970's. Socialism was tried' date=' the government owned most of the large industries, it owned the airlines, the railways, the freight companies, the oil companies, the telephones, the gas, the steel and iron works, the coal mines, it even owned the travel agents. The government told companies what prices to charge and what wages to pay, it centrally directed the economy, it planned and built new towns and cities and directed and controlled where companies could invest. It also provided free health care and free education for all. If that's not socialism what is? (and by the way, it resulted in chaos and near total collapse) What is amusing here? Do you think socialism does work? Where are these tens off thousands of people who are starving every day? It might interest you to look at the history of famine. There is an axiom that 'democracies don't starve'. People starve in dictatorships, in controlled economies. Where there are elections and the rudiments of 'capitalism' there are no famines. For examples, compare pre independence India with independent India. Or compare 1960's India with 1960's China. Or semi democratic Kenya to undemocratic Ethopia. Pointing out imperfections in 'capitalism' doesn't make socialism the answer. Socialism has been tried, repeatedly, in different countries, at different times and in different ways. The only example that even half supports the contention that socialism can work is Sweden, and even Sweden has had to ditch a lot of socialist policies to prevent economic crisis.

All the conventional wisdom is saying that China is going to keep on getting a lot stronger and richer. And China isn't a communist state anyway.

Actually a large proportion of Israelis do believe in co-existence with Palestinians and that peace between Israel and Palestinians is possible. Even those who don't are not advocating genocide. And i'm not just basing my opinions on watching some documentaries, but from actually talking to Israelis, including some who have serviced in intelligence and in the Paratroops as well as 'ordinary' civilians. I've never heard a comment that could be even remotely interpreted as advocating genocide. You're not blaming them for holding a position that they don't actually hold. Do you have any actual evidence for that statement? Again, do you have any evidence that there is 'a general disregard for innocent civilian populations'? In what way are Israeli tactics in the West Bank different from US tactics in Afghanistan and Iraq? When US forces rocket bomb a wedding party are they guilty of genocide? That idea seems ridiculous, but by your logic it is the answer.

No you haven't. The accusation of Genocide is a very serious one which you haven't substaniated. You have mentioned Israeli excesses and stated' date=' without any evidence at all, that these excesses are secretly condonned by Israeli authorities as part of a secret plot of genocide. That does not count as addressing the issue. You have not presented any backing for your extreme and very serious charge. As i stated, those links were just to get you started. It is a fact that Israeli soldiers operate under the law and are subject to disciplinary action and prosecution if they violate that law. Which does help disprove your contention that the Israeli military is engaging in a secret genocide plot. Measuring right and wrong by bodycount arithmetic makes no sense at all. If the Palestinians were inflicting more causalties would you consider them to be in the wrong, but as long as they are receiving more casualties they are in the right? If the Israelis were engaged in genocide, secret or not, would they be pulling back from Gaza? Would Palestinians in Israel have full citizenship and the vote? Would they have Palestinians be represented in the Israeli Parliament? Would the Palestinian territories be holding an election? Of course not. But that is because Israel is not engaged in any form of genocide.

If the Israeli military was deliberately encouraging or consistently turning a blind eye to the targetting of nonmilitary targets then that would make the military complicit in those attacks. However that is not the case. There have been incidents where Israeli forces have over reacted and incidents where crimes committed by Israeli forces have not been investigated and prosecuted with as much vigour as would seen just, but these are not consistent and do not reach the bar of being either state sponsored policy or terrorism. Israeli soldiers have been prosecuted for crimes committed against Palestinians and there are Israeli soldiers in prison for those offences. Israeli forces have repeatedly acted to prevent attacks on Palestinians by Israeli civilians. It is fair to point at incidents of Israeli overreactions and condemn them. But to move from that to arguing that Israel is guilty of state terrorism, or even genocide, is a false exaggeration. It is that tendency of exaggeration and distorting of facts that is in itself damaging to the Palaestinians cause. If you accuse a pickpocket of being a bank robber it is yourself who ends up looking bad, not the pickpocket.

Have you taken any legal advice? Large organisations often make claims and demands which can be negotiated downward, but they know that many people won't get legal advice and will allow themselves to be bullied. If you know your rights and let them know that then they will be much more likely to become reasonable.

Do you have any evidence to back that assertion? Can you name any of these anonymous 'military members'. Or are you just making that up?

Charles Kennedy made a remark about controlling his alcohol problem with Vitamin C. Is there any scientific basis to that claim?

There is no reason for that story to 'get the goat' of anyone. It is well recognised in history that early myths and traditional folk memories can be surprisingly accurate in recalling information from the past, for instance the Odyssey and even stories of King Arthur have been substantively supported by archeological evidence. As such the idea that the Old Testament contains a large degree of historical information of the Israelities past is in no way controversial. It is only when a mistaken link is made between recognising the story of Cain and Abel as an allergory of the clash between nomad and farmer (a historically supported view) and the literal interpretation of creation myths is made that peoples 'goat' can be got. The Bible can be used as a historical source (with great caution) but by it's own chronology it places the creation before the start of history. Therefore it is scientifically invalid as a source on that subject.

How wonderfully of target! I didn't state that communism was as successful as capitalism or that Americans were/are more patriotic than Russians. I stated that the nation rivalries were based on nationalism rather than ideology. America didn't go to the moon to prove that capitalism is superior to communism, they went to prove that America is superior to other nations. Now who's being naive?

Yes it does. Science states that creationism is completely wrong. Evolution is the explaination for lifes development and diversity. Presumably to disseminate truth and have some fun mocking the idiots who try to spread creationist rubbish.